Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1919–1978 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Antonio v. Lewis
neutral
2 sentences1957In the case of San Antonio v. Lewis, 15 Tex. 388 , cited above, the Court discusses the rule of the French and Spanish law as it affected an alienation of a part of Main Plaza in the City of San Antonio. 1957In the case of San Antonio v. Lewis, 15 Texas 388 , cited above, the Court discusses the rule of the French and Spanish law as it affected an alienation of a part of Main Plaza in the City of San Antonio. | 2 | 1957–1957 |
Jones v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the 1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
green
2 sentences1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the 1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.
green
2 sentences1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the 1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Carafas v. LaVallee
green
2 sentences1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the 1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Peyton v. Rowe
green
2 sentences1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the 1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Lefkowitz v. Newsome
green
2 sentences1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the 1978Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 , 95 S.Ct. 886 , 43 L.Ed.2d 196 (1975); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Braden v. Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 , 88 S.Ct. 1549 , 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) [wherein the Court discusses the requirement that a habeas petitioner must be “in custody” pursuant to the conviction attacked at the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
City of Garland v. Joyce
green
1 sentence1974In this connection see City of Garland v. Joyce, 462 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.Civ.App.1970, writ ref. n.r.e.) where the court discusses the error of permitting testimony as to sales of tracts which obviously were not similar and in allowing a witness to adjust prices paid so as to permit such sales to be called comparable. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Kelley v. Ward
green
2 sentences1919In Guffey v. Dinwiddie, 182 S.W. 446 , the court discusses the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Kelley v. Word, 94 Tex. 289 , 60 S.W. 311 , as follows: "The finding of immaterial facts cannot be made ground for reversal, if the judgment is not in conflict with the findings upon material issues." If it be conceded that the fifth finding of fact by the court, as copied above in this *Page 171 opinion, is immaterial, this finding clearly comes within the rule just above announced. 1919In Guffey v. Dinwiddie, 182 S.W. 446 , the court discusses the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Kelley v. Word, 94 Tex. 289 , 60 S.W. 311 , as follows: "The finding of immaterial facts cannot be made ground for reversal, if the judgment is not in conflict with the findings upon material issues." If it be conceded that the fifth finding of fact by the court, as copied above in this *Page 171 opinion, is immaterial, this finding clearly comes within the rule just above announced. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.